Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42260643›Full record

ArticleParasites & vectors2026

Artificial visual environments to enhance mating success in colonised Anopheles funestus.

Paul C Mrosso, Ashley M Burke, Halfan S Ngowo, Megan A Riddin, Fredros O Okumu, Bernard W T Coetzee, Lizette L Koekemoer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Parasites & vectors, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Paul C MrossoWits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1455-8369
Ashley M BurkeWits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2779-4678
Halfan S NgowoDepartment of Environmental Health and Ecological Science, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2789-0261
Megan A RiddinFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria Institute for Sustainable Malaria Control, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4858-6074
Fredros O OkumuDepartment of Environmental Health and Ecological Science, Ifakara Health Institute, Ifakara, Tanzania.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2731-5654
Bernard W T CoetzeeConservation Ecology Research Unit, Department of Zoology and Entomology, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9913-6295
Lizette L KoekemoerWits Research Institute for Malaria, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. lizette.koekemoer@wits.ac.za.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4236-6345

Funding

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Grant OPP1177156Jennifer Ward Oppenheimer Research Grant 02National Research Foundation of South Africa SRUG2203311457
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstablishing and maintaining laboratory colonies of the malaria vector, Anopheles funestus using newly collected material has proven challenging, in part because of their low propensity to mate in captivity. In this study we assessed how cage conditions influence the mating success of two An. funestus strains originating from different geographic areas, Angola (FANG) and Mozambique (FUMOZ).

methodsThe visual environment in adult mosquito-rearing cages was manipulated either by covering the cages in different planes with black opaque cloth (referred to as black horizons) or by placing black visual markers at various positions inside the cages. Mating success was assessed by dissecting the spermathecae capsule of the females after the standard 10-day mating period.

resultsInsemination rates were consistently higher in the An. funestus FANG strain than in the FUMOZ strain in both the black horizon (odds ratio [OR] 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.44, p < 0.001) and visual marker experiments (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.08-0.19, p < 0.001). The inclusion of black horizons and visual markers significantly increased insemination in both strains (p < 0.001). However, strain-specific responses were evident: FANG showed significantly greater insemination rates in the side-covered cages (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.41-3.01, p < 0.001), whereas FUMOZ insemination rates declined under the same condition (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24-0.70, p < 0.001). The insemination rate of the FUMOZ strain was significantly higher in top-covered cages (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.38-0.95, p = 0.03) and when a visual marker was placed at the bottom of cage (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.25-3.81, p = 0.006), while FANG insemination rates were unaffected by marker position.

conclusionsThis study demonstrates that manipulating the visual environment within adult mosquito-rearing cages can significantly enhance mating success in An. funestus, although the effectiveness of specific visual cues varies between strains. While both FANG and FUMOZ responded positively to visual enhancements, their differing responses to the same conditions underscore the importance of tailoring rearing protocols as mating stimuli at their original location may be associated with specific environmental features. These findings offer preliminary guidance for improving the colonisation and maintenance of An. funestus in laboratory settings, while highlighting the need for further research to improve mating success for this species.

Indexed as

AnophelesMosquito VectorsSexual Behavior, AnimalAnimalsFemaleMaleMozambiqueAnopheles funestus rearingBlack horizonsInsemination ratesRearing cageVisual markers

Identifiers

PMID42260643
PMCPMC13470940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.